News

500+ abusers of workfare conscripts named and shamed – as in the public interest

This is the second of two linked posts about the DWP’s release of the names of organisations that were using Mandatory Work Activity in 2011-12. The first post – a response from Boycott Workfare – is here. This blog is a guest post by Frank Zola, a member of Boycott Workfare who has been involved since the start in the battle to get the DWP to reveal the names of workfare exploiters through Freedom of Information requests. You can also read the post on his blog here. Frank Zola was previously sanctioned as a flexible new deal (“work for your benefit“) workfare refusenik and A4econscript.

“READ THIS AND RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM!”
— Clare Hepworth OBE (@Hepworthclare) July 31, 2016

“The tribunal is firmly of the view that in these appeals the scales are weighed appreciably in favour of disclosure”

A precedent

This legal precedent should now mean anyone, anywhere in the world, is free to use the Freedom of Information Act (2000) (FOIA) to request the names of UK workfare exploiting employers. I suggest using whatdotheyknow.com to make such FOIA requests, as it ensures the FOIA process is kept open and transparent. Do not get too complacent or underestimate the importance of this “vast” list of workfare exploiters, just note that Éire disclosed a similar list of nearly 12,000 of it’s Government forced-labour conscript employers.

Collective punishment

During this protracted battle the DWP used every devious strategy to deny the public right to know the names of employers using it’s numerous forced unpaid labour schemes, “collectively known as workfare”, as the CoA ruling says. This also meant they used the FOIA internal review, tribunal and court appeals processes over the past four and a half years to stymie all similar requests, despite the many Information Commissioner decisions supporting your right to know. Workfare schemes cost the public billions and now employers won’t be able to hide behind the DWP’s cloak of secrecy, obfuscation and legal sophistry.

It seems to be forgotten that the public are also benefit claimants with economic self-interests. Why should they lose their meagre subsistence level income through benefit sanctions because they refuse to allow charities, social enterprises, businesses and public authorities to economically exploit them for there own sordid commercial gains?

Shopping charities

Why, for instance, should the myriad of charity shops on our high streets, often within the most deprived communities, be free to pursue their grubby commercial interests via a DWP guaranteed supply of forced unpaid workfare conscripts? These Janus faced hypocrites so often claim to be relieving poverty, whilst they are actually responsible for causing destitution and despair by facilitating cruel benefit sanctions for anyone who refuses to comply with workfare. The communities they claim to serve are the very ones they exploit, workfare conscripts are so often actually engaged in making money for many of these abusers to pay their staff wages.

Charities, social enterprises, businesses and public authorities (everyone) should stop using workfare. Like Oxfam and the hundreds of others, they should all consider it fundamentally unethical.

The Mandatory Work Activity is not compatible with Oxfam’s stance on benefits… In addition to this, there are ‘sanctions’ attached to the scheme which could result in participants having their benefits removed… which would create situations where people were being driven into poverty. This is not compatible with Oxfam’s aims and beliefs.
Source: http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=533

Forever England

I take this opportunity to call upon England’s NCVO to publicly oppose workfare outright and issue guidance to it’s members, just like it’s counterparts in Scotland and Wales have already done.

It is more than worrying that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 embeds mandatory workfare (Work Experience or a Work Placement) as a ‘work preparation‘ requirement for all Universal Credit (UC) claimants. A requirement that makes no distinction whatsoever on whether a UC claimant is already working in paid employment or volunteering.

The Conservative manifesto of 2015 also included a promise to introduce a new ‘Youth Allowance‘ benefit for 18 to 21 years olds, to limit entitlement to six months and abolish automatic rights to Housing Benefit and impose mandatory daily community workfare, if unpaid traineeships (which can last up to 6 months) or Jobcentre organised work experience are refused. These, now Conservative Government, plans are being implemented in 2017. There are well advanced plans to replace the Work Programme workfare scheme, which will have conscripts until March 2019, with the Work and Health Programme, which will no doubt also include forced unpaid labour for benefits.

Transforming lives through welfare and work(fare)
“We’ll be using work experience much more creatively…”
First speech by new DWP Secretary of State, Stephen Crabb – 12 April 2016

Pay and conditions

To make work pay, including ‘traineeships’ and other forms of ‘work experience’ organised by Government or by employers directly, this work must be paid on a statutory basis at the going rate or the real living wage when the going rate is less, be entirely voluntary, with no wage distinctions on the basis of age and all workers should have the status of employees and be able to enjoy full worker, trade union, health & safety and equality legislation rights and protection. Benefit claimants should be provided with accessible education and training that is entirely voluntary and for it to have true parity with the budgets and resources currently devoted to University level education. As a start, the secret penal system, of benefit sanctions should be abolished without exception.

The modern day scourge of forced-labour would not have been uncovered without the campaigning, direct action and research of Boycott Workfare and more recently Keep Volunteering Voluntary, they should be supported unequivocally. If Éire can release the names of nearly 12,000 workfare exploiters, then the DWP should release the names of all UK workfare exploiters immediately, so we the public can see who they are in the full light of day, as sunlight is the best disinfectant for one of the most morally corrupt social security policies.

Maybe the ‘vile maxim‘ of the 500+ masters and overseers of workfare should be the literal:

‘All the commercial gains for ourselves, nothing for the workfare conscripts’

Vigilance

The price of freedom from workfare is unfortunately ‘eternal vigilance‘. Some of the ‘fallout’ from the publication of these workfare exploiters, is the likes of Shelter saying it does not use workfare, but does not respond to a question on whether it has any ability to stop workfare conscripts being placed in it’s high street charity shops on a local level. Similarly Pizza Hut claim to avow workfare, but as the worlds biggest franchise operation, remain stubbornly silent on the question of whether it’s franancisees are free to use workfare and specifically unpaid 6 month traineeships. There is also a need to be mindful that DWP workfare contractors have been known to place conscripts as fake ‘volunteers‘.

The Freedom of Information Act is facilitating this disclosure of workfare hosts names and whatdotheyknow.com must be commended for making FOI requests easier and keeping the process open to full public scrutiny.

Zola: ICO Decision Notice – Case Ref: FS50438037 (PDF) – Summary – 22 August 2012
“Having weighed the competing public interest arguments the Commissioner has concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh thepublic interest in disclosure”
(DWP ‘evidence‘ released to the ICO, prior to above decision – disclosed 12/6/12)

ICO decision replicated in the two FOI requests that formed part of the Court of Appeal ruling:

Naysmith: ICO Decision Notice – Case Ref: FS50438502 (PDF) – 1 October 2012
FOI request “for the names of organisations that provided work boost placements, work experience or other unpaid work activity to customers of Seetec within Contract Package Area 4 (East London) within the past 12 months.

Kelly: ICO Decision Notice – Case Ref: FS50438502 (PDF) – 1 October 2012
FOI request “for the names of the organisations that JHP Group use when delivering Mandatory Work Activity in the Scotland Contract Package Area (CPA)”

Comments

Comments (2)

Leave a reply:

[…] This is the first of two linked posts about the DWP being forced to reveal the names of hundreds of workfare exploiters from 2012, after losing a four year legal battle. Frank Zola has pursued this information since 2012. Mr Zola is a member of Boycott Workfare, and you can read the second post – his detailed account of the Court of Appeal ruling and its background – here: 500+ abusers of workfare conscripts named and shamed. […]

Know your rights at the jobcentre: you have the right to be accompanied to any interviews | Cautiously pessimistic

August 7th at 4:40pm

[…] subject of claimants getting organised, we should all take a moment to celebrate the heroic work of Frank Zola and Boycott Workfare, who’ve finally triumphed after a four-and-a-half-year battle to get the […]

Location by @daosme from the Noun Project
Whistle by david fauveau ∞ from the Noun Project
Info by Roberto Chiaveri from the Noun Project
Whistle by Mike Ashley from the Noun Project
Whistle by Marvin Wilhelm from the Noun Project
Fullscreen by Garrett Knoll from the Noun Project